Torsten Scheck wrote:
>The purpose of all my comments has been to get you (our stakeholders) interested in our processes and invite you to check, if those processes are okay in your books. As the former sendmail discussion didn't touch those processes, I assumed that our processes are not well-known.
>>On the contrary. The MTA discussion that Mark started was an integral
part of the process, specifically intended to engage in what Ross
described as
> - Polling sysadmins as to most commonly-used packages
> - Normalizing between "real-world" and "included-with-distro" packages
>>
It's also a fully legitimate part of the process described on the wiki,
specifically the component said to have started July 1:
> Update L1 Objectives, using community feedback collected during this
> period
So it's incorrect to say that the MTA discussion was outside the known
process, and thus inaccurate to use such an assertion as a premise for
other assumptions or assertions.
- Evan